What do you think people did before AF? People practiced and became good at MF and got results....I honestly do not see why anyone would need AF to get results unless you had poor eyesight and had to rely on it for that reason. AF is mainly a convenience and a good photographer doesn't need it to get good results.

and idk about most people...but I use two hands even when I'm using AF.

He's a "spray and pray" shoot from the hip one-handed landscape photographer.

I think a lot of people have forgotten that selective focus control is part of the creative process. People who have gotten into shooting HD video have rediscovered manual focus and the control that it gives you when you have the time. I wouldn't want to shoot an event or a wedding will all MF, but with a good view finder its quick enough. For fine art work I enjoy manual focus as part of the process.

But what stops me from buying an A7 or a D810 for that matter is the shutter noise. I can not, will not tolerate loud shutter noise like that. Why is it that FF cameras do that - does the larger sensor mean that the shutter has to be noiser? The A7s has an electronic shutter and is totally silent - i think i could get used to that A friend has both the A7S and the A7R. Says the A7S is the only one he uses for still shooting.

I really don't mind the louder shutter. Working with a Contax 645 for the last 10 years has probably damaged my hearing anyway (sarcasm). Sony has address most of my complaints with the new ergonomics and better build quality. What they haven't done is address the RAW compression. They advertise 16-bit capture and 14-bit output, but all of the test have shown that its 11-bit and has posterization issues when really pushed. The compression that Sony is using is putting out 24MB RAW files in the A7, while the K-3 produces uncompressed 14-bit 30MB files. The Fuji X-T1 and its 16MP sensor produces 14-bit 32MB uncompressed RAW files.

Is almost like Sony is intentionally handicapping the A7. The K-3 can pretty much match the A7 when it comes IQ in prints. If Sony would allow for the option of uncompressed 14-bit RAW files the A7II might rival the D750 for IQ, but with the 11-bit files, its really not much better than the K-3 or Fuji X-T1.

Well then, glad we got that sorted out. I still worry about the 12 MP thing, but I look at what I used to shoot with the K-x, and I'm not really sure why.

Yep, when i had the K20, figured i never needed anymore than that :-) So haven't made my mind up on this either.

Originally posted by Winder

I really don't mind the louder shutter. Working with a Contax 645 for the last 10 years has probably damaged my hearing anyway (sarcasm). Sony has address most of my complaints with the new ergonomics and better build quality. What they haven't done is address the RAW compression. They advertise 16-bit capture and 14-bit output, but all of the test have shown that its 11-bit and has posterization issues when really pushed. The compression that Sony is using is putting out 24MB RAW files in the A7, while the K-3 produces uncompressed 14-bit 30MB files. The Fuji X-T1 and its 16MP sensor produces 14-bit 32MB uncompressed RAW files.

Is almost like Sony is intentionally handicapping the A7. The K-3 can pretty much match the A7 when it comes IQ in prints. If Sony would allow for the option of uncompressed 14-bit RAW files the A7II might rival the D750 for IQ, but with the 11-bit files, its really not much better than the K-3 or Fuji X-T1.

I hadn't heard about all that - yikes - i push my processing stuff hard at times - don't like posterization at all. Have to rethink the A7 business. Could well be a decision for power and heat dissipation reasons. Its a small chassis for all the stuff they crammed into it. Hmmm.....

I've been thought the same thing with the 14 bit of my K-5 and the 12 bit of my K-01. No one can see a difference, in editing, I can't tell there is a difference. I have a few images of a vary high contrast waterfall with deep shadows to be rescued. The images after pp are indistinguishable. And actually the images before PP are indistinguishable.

I've been thought the same thing with the 14 bit of my K-5 and the 12 bit of my K-01. No one can see a difference, in editing, I can't tell there is a difference. I have a few images of a vary high contrast waterfall with deep shadows to be rescued. The images after pp are indistinguishable.

Inquiring minds want to know. Can anyone explain what the actual difference is? Is there a difference that we users (I agree with Norm) cannot see? By the latter question I mean is there something that camera designers can use to help make the camera but which does not show in the output? There has to be some difference if only to contribute to marketing hype. Someone must know.

What we know is that an 8 bit jpeg doesn't give you enough leeway to do a good job in PP, in some instances. Somewhere between 8 bit and 12 bit there must be a magic point where the difference becomes meaningless. IF sony is using 11 bit... then my guess is their engineers have decided that 11 bit is the magic point. I've actually seen scientific papers suggesting that on APS-c there's no theoretical advantage to going more than 12 bit... so it's quite possible that 11 bit is the particle cut off, beyond which the only practical advantage is for the marketing department.

Previously someone pointed out it was just one scientific paper, so maybe not good information. And that's true, but in the interest of science, I'm going with that until someone produces a paper that says it's wrong. In my mind a guy who actually uses the theories of optical physics to explain an issue like this, is always more believable than some guy on the internet who can't produce a cogent, theoretical position on the subject.

Lets get real, evaluate the images, not the number of bits someone says they use.

14 bit vs 12 or 11 bit is a different issue from RAW compression. It seems people are mixing up compression and bit depth.

I'm no expert, but ...

14 bit or 12/11 bit involves reading out data from the sensor so that a certain range of tonal values are recorded. Some cameras let you select what bit depth you want to read data off the sensor - eg Nikon's options for 14 bit or 12 bit. It's 'stage one' of the process in the formation of a RAW data file.

RAW compression involves the application (or not) of compression algorithms to RAW data files as they get saved. It's 'stage two' of the process.

So bit depth isn't an indicator whether a RAW file is compressed or not. You can have 12 bit uncompressed, or 14 bit compressed, depending on the RAW saving options the camera supports.

What 12 bit means relative to 14 bit is that the 12 bit file will record 4,096 tonal values per colour channel whilst the 14 bit file will record 16,384 tonal values per channel. Creating a 12 bit RAW file in-camera is not achieved by 'compressing' a 14 bit file, but by how the camera has been instructed to read the data off the sensor. In some cameras a 14 bit RAW file is created simply by the camera more slowly and carefully reading the data off the sensor than it would for a 12 bit file.

14 bit vs 12 or 11 bit is a different issue from RAW compression. It seems people are mixing up compression and bit depth.

I'm no expert, but ...

14 bit or 12/11 bit involves reading out data from the sensor so that a certain range of tonal values are recorded. Some cameras let you select what bit depth you want to read data off the sensor - eg Nikon's options for 14 bit or 12 bit. It's 'stage one' of the process in the formation of a RAW data file.

RAW compression involves the application (or not) of compression algorithms to RAW data files as they get saved. It's 'stage two' of the process.

So bit depth isn't an indicator whether a RAW file is compressed or not. You can have 12 bit uncompressed, or 14 bit compressed, depending on the RAW saving options the camera supports.

What 12 bit means relative to 14 bit is that the 12 bit file will record 4,096 tonal values per colour channel whilst the 14 bit file will record 16,384 tonal values per channel. Creating a 12 bit RAW file in-camera is not achieved by 'compressing' a 14 bit file, but by how the camera has been instructed to read the data off the sensor. In some cameras a 14 bit RAW file is created simply by the camera more slowly and carefully reading the data off the sensor than it would for a 12 bit file.

Ive read some posts here that the 14bit of the K-5 vs. the 12bit of lower tier cameras can be noticed in the dynamic range and noise, but only when you shoot raw and push the limits of processing (especially when adding brightness/exposure digitally). I think flagships should have a higher bitrate, but I would also like to see Pentax add compression options, like Nikon does.
I am surprised the Sony has problems like that, but on the other hand.. Sony has never squeezed as much out of their sensors as Nikon and Pentax have. The 16MP APSC sensor was used in many cameras, but the K-5 got the most out of it, and the K-5IIs now has even more sharpness. Its kind of an odd phenomenon, don't know why Sony doesn't do it.

All of these suggestions are very interesting. While Norm is probably right that we rarely can see the difference perhaps it does aid in the speed of processing in the camera as well as adding a bit of extra room in post processing. It is odd, though, that the marketing guys do not stress this if it does speed up processing. They love to claim technical advantages that we often do not see.

The DxO tests show higher dynamic range for the 16mp Pentax cameras with 14-bit vs 12-bit, and I've always understood the bit-depth was a major factor in this (there could be something else at play?). It's near 1 EV at iso100 and the advantage drops fast as iso goes up. So you'll probably you'll have to go looking for the difference in many circumstances, and likely strain your eyes trying to find one.

I'd guess it's more of a marketing success than a 'must-have' feature. I'd welcome a convincing comparison one way or the other.